Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Humor

Pragmatic Dharma = Buddhist Anarchy

Toggle
Pragmatic Dharma = Buddhist Anarchy
Answer
7/5/17 9:33 PM
But seriously folks..  Anyone have a better definition?  ;)

RE: Pragmatic Dharma = Buddhist Anarchy
Answer
8/20/17 10:40 AM as a reply to T DC.
This is how the Seattle Pragmatic Underground Dharma Society defines it:

Note (8/20): Edited to reflect the most recent verbiage
Meditation comes down to openness of possibilities. Investigating what seems to be constrained in our present experience. Understanding how subtle perceptual processes tick, in real time.  Allowing a sense of deeper connection and relationship with life.  Using skepticism and discrimination but also acceptance and joy.  We are open to the possibility of what can arise from skillful and diligent practice, while leading an otherwise conventional life. Out of this openness of possibility unfolds a sense of empowerment and ownership of one’s meditative path.  It includes the option for non monastics to pursue classical awakening (as defined by ancient contemplative texts) in this lifetime. Pragmatic Dharma is a modern approach to the path of awakening. It draws from the teachings and practices of various contemplative traditions, but also from the contemporary discoveries of science, technology and more.  Pragmatic Dharma is about being open to what works.

RE: Pragmatic Dharma = Buddhist Anarchy
Answer
7/6/17 2:00 AM as a reply to T DC.
Professor Ron Crouch - What is Pragmatic Dharma?

DreamWalker's thread contains great references to Vince Horn & another blogger who have also defined pragmatic dharma well.

RE: Pragmatic Dharma = Buddhist Anarchy
Answer
7/6/17 2:27 AM as a reply to T DC.
When reading the Pali Canon and the old stories of the Buddha, his life, and the early Buddhist Sangha, as well as the general spiritual community of the time around them, as well as stories about places such as Nalanda, I get the sense that what we are doing here is not only nothing new, it is basically what they did back in the day in many ways.

People debated actively what they best practices were, what lead to what, what was useful and not useful, what worked and what didn't. They were open about attainments. They shop-talked actively about techniques, tricks, trials, tribulations, successes, failures, phenomenology, and the like, as that was what they were into.

It is hard to imagine the Abhidhamma, the commentaries, and even much of the Pali Canon arising in a situation that had an attitude that was anything other than that. This also applies to the massive cross-pollenation and convergence of various traditions that lead to the innovations that arose in Indian Buddhism in the Nalanda period and later spread to regions such as and including Tibet and formed the basis of much of Tibetan Buddhism.

Further, this sort of practicality just seems normal to me in any endeavor where there are goals, various schools of thought, various teachers, various texts, various techniques, all of which are now available and which logically must be compared, contrasted, texted, exprimented with, explored, synthesized, and refined, as well as rediscovered.

Seriously, what are the obvious alternatives and why would anyone prefer those to this if people actually cared about progress in spiritual development and growth? Does anyone really think that monolithic adherance to one tradition in a secretive and proprietary fashion without discussion or questioning is really going to produce the best results for the most people?

I don't think of our take on this as modern or post-modern, but just straightforwardly like most pragmatic tasks are approached and have been for millennia.

RE: Pragmatic Dharma = Buddhist Anarchy
Answer
7/6/17 12:19 PM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
 - Noah - Ya I usually just go with "whatever works in practice".
 
- Daniel - Thanks for the post, that is a great perspective!

  I have a soft spot toward the philosophy of anarchy, as for self-governance and opposed to authority and hierarchical orginization, so I see the title as somewhat of a positive - as in opposition to a top down 'mushroom' culture - and also as humerous due to the many diverse opinions on here.

That said, I do majorly value the discussion, and for me personally the pragmatic movement's focus on what works as translated to open recognition and pursuit of attainment/ perceptual shifts - genuinly overcoming suffering - seems highly in line with the original spirit of Buddhism.

RE: Pragmatic Dharma = Buddhist Anarchy
Answer
7/6/17 10:16 PM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Daniel M. Ingram:
When reading the Pali Canon and the old stories of the Buddha, his life, and the early Buddhist Sangha, as well as the general spiritual community of the time around them, as well as stories about places such as Nalanda, I get the sense that what we are doing here is not only nothing new, it is basically what they did back in the day in many ways.

People debated actively what they best practices were, what lead to what, what was useful and not useful, what worked and what didn't. They were open about attainments. They shop-talked actively about techniques, tricks, trials, tribulations, successes, failures, phenomenology, and the like, as that was what they were into.

It is hard to imagine the Abhidhamma, the commentaries, and even much of the Pali Canon arising in a situation that had an attitude that was anything other than that. This also applies to the massive cross-pollenation and convergence of various traditions that lead to the innovations that arose in Indian Buddhism in the Nalanda period and later spread to regions such as and including Tibet and formed the basis of much of Tibetan Buddhism.

Further, this sort of practicality just seems normal to me in any endeavor where there are goals, various schools of thought, various teachers, various texts, various techniques, all of which are now available and which logically must be compared, contrasted, texted, exprimented with, explored, synthesized, and refined, as well as rediscovered.

Seriously, what are the obvious alternatives and why would anyone prefer those to this if people actually cared about progress in spiritual development and growth? Does anyone really think that monolithic adherance to one tradition in a secretive and proprietary fashion without discussion or questioning is really going to produce the best results for the most people?

I don't think of our take on this as modern or post-modern, but just straightforwardly like most pragmatic tasks are approached and have been for millennia.
Thank you for these thoughts Daniel.  They help to clarify some central topics to focus on as I participate in the development of a local sangha.  

RE: Pragmatic Dharma = Buddhist Anarchy
Answer
7/7/17 6:05 AM as a reply to Noah D.
Anarchy is actually a very good literal word for modern practical dharma and the early sangha, meaning "without a leader". One of the most amazing things that buddha did was NOT appoint a successor, while at the same time emphasizing the importance of the spiritual community/friends. 

RE: Pragmatic Dharma = Buddhist Anarchy
Answer
7/7/17 3:01 PM as a reply to shargrol.
To me the interesting question is this - "What would the Buddha appoint a successor to?"

I'm in agreement about the apt-ness of the word "anarchy" as it's being used here to describe pragmatic buddhism. A read through the threads here and on other pragmatic oriented meditation forums is ample supporting evidence.